Possibly. is it any wonder when everyday you read the dross they print. most tabloids this week have been fillling their pages with the Peter Crouch story. i don't give a toss about Crouch and what he does, but the tabloids seem to think i and many others do.back on topic i think all of us Rugby League fans should only buy newspapers with a Rugby League correspodent. not many options to choose from, but i think we should.

The best method is to comment on articles and blogs by RL writers - so Dave Hadfields articles or the RL blogs in the Guardian. Unfortunately the Independent changes its comments system every month or so none of whoch I have ever been able to work out how to register with. I am banned from commenting on Guardian blogs because they don't like you pointing out on Shaun Edwards' pieces of fiction that Richard Branson is a billionaire and the muppet at Bath isn't.

Possibly. is it any wonder when everyday you read the dross they print. most tabloids this week have been fillling their pages with the Peter Crouch story. i don't give a toss about Crouch and what he does, but the tabloids seem to think i and many others do.back on topic i think all of us Rugby League fans should only buy newspapers with a Rugby League correspodent. not many options to choose from, but i think we should.

Without wanting to de-rail the thread/read a tabloid, what Peter Crouch story?!

The best method is to comment on articles and blogs by RL writers - so Dave Hadfields articles or the RL blogs in the Guardian. Unfortunately the Independent changes its comments system every month or so none of whoch I have ever been able to work out how to register with. I am banned from commenting on Guardian blogs because they don't like you pointing out on Shaun Edwards' pieces of fiction that Richard Branson is a billionaire and the muppet at Bath isn't.

doesn't it help when we click on Rugby League articles. isn't that what encouraged jones to continue to spew out his lies with people were clicking on his online articles?

doesn't it help when we click on Rugby League articles. isn't that what encouraged jones to continue to spew out his lies with people were clicking on his online articles?

Stephen Jones has been the Sunday Times' Rugby (sic) Correspondent for around 25 years and has gloried in damning rugby league and humiliating even its greatest players throughout this period. He won the prize - I kid you not! - for (William Hill?) Sports Book of the Year for his "masterpiece" "Endless Winter..." Read the sections on rugby league and weep. He's untouchable. Refusing on principle to click on his online articles would make no difference whatsoever to his status on the newspaper. Sports Editors have come and gone but Jones remains - inviolable, imperious in his shamelessness and cawing derisively, no doubt, upon Chris Irvine's demise.

VERY sad news from London, where The Times have decided to get rid of the post of fulltime rugby league writer.

The current Times league roundsman, Chris Irvine, sent me an emotional message the other night, pointing to News Limited's alleged commitment to rugby league as something of a contradiction.

Chris will finish up after the Four Nations and in future, The Times will probably use agency copy and sent colour or general reporters to the big events like Wembley and Test matches.

And so, another nail in the coffin of league's national profile in the UK. When Sam Burgess said recently "who knows what will happen to league in England?", this is the sort of thing he was talking about.

Stephen Jones has been the Sunday Times' Rugby (sic) Correspondent for around 25 years and has gloried in damning rugby league and humiliating even its greatest players throughout this period. He won the prize - I kid you not! - for (William Hill?) Sports Book of the Year for his "masterpiece" "Endless Winter..." Read the sections on rugby league and weep. He's untouchable. Refusing on principle to click on his online articles would make no difference whatsoever to his status on the newspaper. Sports Editors have come and gone but Jones remains - inviolable, imperious in his shamelessness and cawing derisively, no doubt, upon Chris Irvine's demise.

for me the constant LIES jones says about Rugby League confirms to me that HE does fear our game. i'm not saying other union writers ,but certainly jones.

doesn't it help when we click on Rugby League articles. isn't that what encouraged jones to continue to spew out his lies with people were clicking on his online articles?

Absolutely, he thrives on it - not just lies about rugby but he goes out of his way to be a cock about union too, he knew he would get huge amount of clicks by saying Brian O'Driscoll shouldn't be on a union lions tour - however he also knew that there were plenty of other union writers who would give a different opinion. In the national media rugby leaue opinion articles are few and far between so the endless runnng tap of lies spouted by Jones and his ilk about rugby league generally tend to find themselves becoming recieved wisdom. Now that the Times has decided to drop rugby league coverage there is one less voice against the hate. It's a great shame but the national media generally have nothing but contempt for rugby league.

The real question that the paranoid on here should ponder is how many readers will the 'Times' lose by cutting its already miniscule RL coverage? The answer is almost certainly none. I think this is a commercial decision - they need to make savings due to reduced income in the current economic climate so they're getting rid of someone who effectively doesn't matter in their scheme of things.

The real question that the paranoid on here should ponder is how many readers will the 'Times' lose by cutting its already miniscule RL coverage? The answer is almost certainly none. I think this is a commercial decision - they need to make savings due to reduced income in the current economic climate so they're getting rid of someone who effectively doesn't matter in their scheme of things.

I doubt anybody bought the Times for its rugby league coverage - it's coverage was miniscule at best with an occasional brief match report often in the sports round up section - it went 2 months at the beginning of the year with no mention of the sport at all. This won't lose the Times any readers - it won't lose them any of the handful of people who pay to peek behind the pay wall. It's just a great shame that national newspapers hold the sport in such contempt. News Ltd certainly seem keen to marginalise rugby league as much as possible.

I bought the Times regularly and frequently and The Sunday Times only when I needed something to make me angry when my mother in law wasn't around. When the on line edition when paywall, I ceased buying the paper at all.

For Chris, hard though this is, it may well represent an opportunity for him to use his skill, ability , knowledge, experience etc more widely. The RFL has a vacancy for a Education and Training Specialist. Maybe Chris could train and educate the RFL in the ways of the media. He'd have a job for life!

It is a shame that we are losing writers in this way, though, especially given the ownership of The Times. Just the feeling that the RFL are just not getting the best out of the Sky relationship.

I bought the Times regularly and frequently and The Sunday Times only when I needed something to make me angry when my mother in law wasn't around. When the on line edition when paywall, I ceased buying the paper at all.

For Chris, hard though this is, it may well represent an opportunity for him to use his skill, ability , knowledge, experience etc more widely. The RFL has a vacancy for a Education and Training Specialist. Maybe Chris could train and educate the RFL in the ways of the media. He'd have a job for life!

It is a shame that we are losing writers in this way, though, especially given the ownership of The Times. Just the feeling that the RFL are just not getting the best out of the Sky relationship.

The RFL are getting some money from Sky and that's about it, Sky do very well from the deal, RL gets marginalised and treated with contempt in the general media.

I will occasionally buy the Times if I don't have internet access but I can't recall ever having made that purchasing decision because of its RL coverage.

Some money? They get market value for a healthy amount of coverage on TV. Murdoch is the single biggest private funder of RL anywhere via TV rights and ownerships unless I'm much mistaken.

It gets enough to keep it ticking over but it's not one of Sky's preferred sports so gets little promotion. The Times is one of Murdochs papers but it gave rugby league the minimum amount of coverage and has now decided even that was too much. Don't worry, irish union will still get a lot of coverage in a british paper.

It gets enough to keep it ticking over but it's not one of Sky's preferred sports so gets little promotion. The Times is one of Murdochs papers but it gave rugby league the minimum amount of coverage and has now decided even that was too much

What promotion are you talking about?? Sky currently broadcasts Origin from Aussie, SL & RL from league beneath SL as well as international RL. It also broadcasts the RLWC (I think). As well as that there are magazine programmes on Brit RL then highlights programmes from NRL.What else should it do?

QUOTE (paley @ Aug 12 2010, 12:45 PM)

Don't worry, irish union will still get a lot of coverage in a british paper

The Irish version of 'The Sunday Times' is a large seller in Ireland. The days of that rag being a purely 'British newspaper' are long gone.

What promotion are you talking about?? Sky currently broadcasts Origin from Aussie, SL & RL from league beneath SL as well as international RL. It also broadcasts the RLWC (I think). As well as that there are magazine programmes on Brit RL then highlights programmes from NRL.What else should it do?

The Irish version of 'The Sunday Times' is a large seller in Ireland. The days of that rag being a purely 'British newspaper' are long gone.

Irish union gets lots of coverage in the british version of The Times.

Sky should promote some of its RL programmes - it doesn't even think RL is rugby but this has all been covered before.

The real question that the paranoid on here should ponder is how many readers will the 'Times' lose by cutting its already miniscule RL coverage? The answer is almost certainly none. I think this is a commercial decision - they need to make savings due to reduced income in the current economic climate so they're getting rid of someone who effectively doesn't matter in their scheme of things.

There is a problem here but I for one am seriously looking at dumping the Times.

I currently take the Sunday Times largely because I really like Culture Magazine and the news. I take it for granted the RL coverage will be non existent, notwithstanding a rather good semi final review last Sunday but I don't buy a Sunday paper for rugby league coverage. However the news has an obvious Tory bias of late, much more than before, which has irritated me and now sacking Chris Irvine really makes me cross.

I feel really sorry for him. We have our part to play here. Chris Irvine posted on here about his RL blog and received a very negative response. Perhaps if we'd been more positive it might have helped him. Maybe not but who knows he just didn't deserve the stick he got I don't think.

If anyone has any suggestions for a Sunday paper that has a decent arts section the Sunday Times is a gonner from my house just as soon as Chris goes.

It is a shame that we are losing writers in this way, though, especially given the ownership of The Times. Just the feeling that the RFL are just not getting the best out of the Sky relationship.

A big cull is just around the corner! There was a piece on the Today programme this morning and apparently in America one outlet has been running computer generated stories covering sports events and people can't tell which have been written by humans and which have been written by the computers and there stock phrases.

If there's money to be saved its bound to catch on in the Murdoch empire!

There is a problem here but I for one am seriously looking at dumping the Times.

I currently take the Sunday Times largely because I really like Culture Magazine and the news. I take it for granted the RL coverage will be non existent, notwithstanding a rather good semi final review last Sunday but I don't buy a Sunday paper for rugby league coverage. However the news has an obvious Tory bias of late, much more than before, which has irritated me and now sacking Chris Irvine really makes me cross.

I feel really sorry for him. We have our part to play here. Chris Irvine posted on here about his RL blog and received a very negative response. Perhaps if we'd been more positive it might have helped him. Maybe not but who knows he just didn't deserve the stick he got I don't think.

If anyone has any suggestions for a Sunday paper that has a decent arts section the Sunday Times is a gonner from my house just as soon as Chris goes.

I don't want to see someone lose their job but as I said earlier the Times sports editor let Jones say as he liked about rugby LEAGUE in his rugby UNION column and failed to do anything about it thus turning off plenty of rugby league fans from buying the 'paper or reading it online. Whilst the sports editor of the Times let this carry on he was putting Chris Irvine's job on the line. Less interest in the Times already minimal rugby league coverage meant they would quite happily pull the plug sooner rather than later.